State v. Meiser

The standard for a “defendant seeking to establish a GEI defense “must show that, at the time of the crime, as a result of a mental disease or defect (which does not include a personality disorder…), the defendant lacked the substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform that conduct to the requirements of law.” State v. Shields, 289 Or App 44, 47, 407 P3d 940 (2017), rev den, 362 Or 794 (2018).

Defendant was convicted of murder, and second-degree burglary, and found guilty except for insanity (GEI) on the remaining charges. On appeal, defendant assigned error to four issues: (1) not finding him GEI on the murder charge; (2) the trial court did not “provide factual findings and legal conclusions explaining the murder verdict;” (3) the sentence received for the murder charge was not proportional, and therefore unconstitutional; and (4) for a charge of first-degree robbery the indictment was insufficient. In turn, the State contended that GEI was not appropriate for murder because “requisite incapacity must result from a qualifying mental disease or defect” and that “combined disabilities are not recognized to cause or result in requisite incapacity.” The standard for a “defendant seeking to establish a GEI defense “must show that, at the time of the crime, as a result of a mental disease or defect (which does not include a personality disorder…), the defendant lacked the substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform that conduct to the requirements of law.” State v.  Shields, 289 Or App 44, 47, 407 P3d 940 (2017), rev den, 362 Or 794 (2018). The court found that there was sufficient evidence to meet the first error assignment; for the second error assignment the court was not required to further explain the verdict; for the third all relevant factors required for a proportional sentence were considered; and fourth the evidence from trial in addition to the indictment supported a first-degree robbery charge. Affirmed.